4 ms·

> Yes, and sender reputation is part of it Sender reputation where you block smaller email providers indiscriminately without weighting DKIM signatures or iden

> Yes, and sender reputation is part of it Sender reputation where you block smaller email providers indiscriminately without weighting DKIM signatures or identity (or just blocking based on IP) is not a way of "handling" it. Your comment is akin to someone saying "the government can handle poverty" and you saying "yes, by killing all of the poor people" - it's very clearly a non-solution. > Who do you think has to and can spend more compute or money, well-trusted Google or a small player? I don't think that you understand how Hashcash is supposed to work, or what it's supposed to solve. The computational cost is imposed on non-Google players - both smaller email servers without a reputation (until they build one up, obviously), and spammers. I mean, sure, if everyone implemented the protocol, then non-Gmail servers could technically request that Gmail do Hashcash challenges in order to receive email, but nobody's going to do that, because nobody believes that Google is going to send spam mail. > Though, I can promise you that on average SpamChimp would get to send a lot of spam for much less "HashCash" than a small player. No, you really can't promise me this, unless you're literally in control of Gmail servers and intentionally adjust the difficulty settings to fulfill this condition. > > is in fact incentivized to not accept email from non-Google domains. > Everyone is. I don't see what your point is here. The fact that Google is incentivized to not accept email from non-Google domains is not a good thing - it's a bad thing. And, really, the above is false - everyone is incentivized to accept legitimate, non-spam email from all of their customers, which is not the same as what you said.

Avamander 4y ago
> Sender reputation where you block smaller email providers indiscriminately without weighting DKIM signatures or identity That's not true. > because nobody believes that Google is going to send spam mail. This sentence indicates you don't know much about who sends spam or not. > The computational cost is imposed on non-Google players You're going in circles. Do you not see how that especially is unfair to the smaller players? Spammers have just as much compute, it will just impose an additional burden on the legitimate senders. So in your scenario a small startup has to wait tens of minutes (bunch of letters in the queue already) to send email confirmation letters. The spammer on the other hand does the same, it'll infect a few more devices, they've exeeded the startup's sending rate. Alternatively, both the spammer and the hypothetical startup build reputation first. They'll warm up the domain, both get to send more in the same timeframe. So... we're at the beginning again, everyone warms up their domains and IP's like they do right now. PoW hasn't improved the sitation. > I don't see what your point is here. Because you haven't seen enough spam. On average everyone is incentivised not to accept mail from new or unknown domains. > everyone is incentivized to accept legitimate, non-spam email from all of their customers No shit, but also not the topic. Received mail is not perfect, that's what's the actual topic.

Avamander 4y ago

> Sender reputation where you block smaller email providers indiscriminately without weighting DKIM signatures or identity That's not true. > because nobody believes that Google is going to send spam mail. This sentence indicates you don't know much about who sends spam or not. > The computational cost is imposed on non-Google players You're going in circles. Do you not see how that especially is unfair to the smaller players? Spammers have just as much compute, it will just impose an additional burden on the legitimate senders. So in your scenario a small startup has to wait tens of minutes (bunch of letters in the queue already) to send email confirmation letters. The spammer on the other hand does the same, it'll infect a few more devices, they've exeeded the startup's sending rate. Alternatively, both the spammer and the hypothetical startup build reputation first. They'll warm up the domain, both get to send more in the same timeframe. So... we're at the beginning again, everyone warms up their domains and IP's like they do right now. PoW hasn't improved the sitation. > I don't see what your point is here. Because you haven't seen enough spam. On average everyone is incentivised not to accept mail from new or unknown domains. > everyone is incentivized to accept legitimate, non-spam email from all of their customers No shit, but also not the topic. Received mail is not perfect, that's what's the actual topic.